Psychoactive substance use and drug checking practices among participants at electronic dance music events in Ukraine

Abstract

Purpose To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study has previously examined the use of psychoactive substances (PASs) at electronic dance music (EDM) events in Ukraine. Addressing this gap in the research literature, this study aims to: describe the recreational drug scene associated with Ukrainian EDM culture; identify clusters of EDM participants who use PAS, based on their drug use patterns; and assess the uptake of drug checking and investigate associations between drug checking and subsequent drug-related behaviour. Design/methodology/approach A series of cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 2021 (N = 1,307) among EDM festival participants in Ukraine. The authors performed cluster analysis to identify distinct profiles of PAS users. Trends in drug checking were analysed based on cross-sectional surveys conducted at one recurring festival in 2018 (N = 99), 2019 (N = 195) and 2021 (N = 237). Findings The substances most often used at EDM events were 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (37%), amphetamine (16%), lysergic acid diethylamide (11%) and cocaine (9%). Between 2018 and 2021, the proportion of participants who reported to have ever tested their drugs has increased from 2% to 26% (p < 0.001). Unexpected or inconclusive test results led to a significantly lower chances of drug consumption (p = 0.003). The authors identified three distinct clusters of PAS users among the EDM festival attendees in Ukraine. Originality/value This study will inform the development of harm reduction interventions tailored to various subgroups of recreational PAS users taking into account gender-specific patterns of use suggested by the authors’ cluster analysis. Increased availability of drug checking is crucial to reduce the risks of drug-related harm associated with the consumption of mis-sold, mislabeled and/or adulterated substances.

Challenges, policy and politics in drug checking: reflections of the TEDItorial team

“…In the meantime, however, and focused as we are here specifically on DCS, we support the decriminalisation of drug use because criminalisation is a barrier both to the implementation of drug checking and also to its evaluation and access (Kerr and Tupper, 2017; Wallace et al , 2022). A change in policy will also allow for the reorientation of part of the budget allocated to enforcement towards health promotion in general and harm reduction in particular, making it possible to envisage an increase in the capacity of DCS and, at the same time, the removal of other barriers to access. Alongside endorsing the principle of universal public access to DCS across communities, we also recognise that festivals can be particularly effective sites for delivering DCS because of the higher levels of prevalence of drug use by festival-goers, their lower prior engagement with health services (Kushakov et al , 2022; Measham and Simmons, 2022; Valente et al , 2022) and the added value of having the point of care located at the point of drug consumption. This means that there is a greater chance that harm reduction measures will be implemented immediately.…”

“…We can only reasonably expect users to discard substances of concern when results of analyses do not match purchase intent. According to multiple contributions to this special issue, test results do not match purchase intent for approximately 12%–17% of tested substances of concern (Barratt et al , 2022; Díaz Moreno et al , 2022; Kaskela et al , 2022; Kushakov et al , 2022; Measham and Simmons, 2022; Valente et al , 2022). When tested substances of concern do not match expectations, a robust and growing body of research (Measham, 2019; Valente et al , 2019; for a review, see Giulini et al , 2022; Maghsoudi et al , 2021) finds that service users discard these substances.…”

“…However, care must be taken to ensure that, in this movement to formalise drug checking, the bar is not set so that it excludes DCS, and in particular those with fewer resources and/or involving peer support services (Hutton, 2022). A diversity of approaches is essential if the needs of the various groups for whom drug checking is intended are to be met (Kushakov et al , 2022; Wallace et al , 2022). While waiting for drug checking to be formalised, a review of the different political and legal contexts and the solutions found by the DCS to operate in them would be helpful for future advocacy in countries in the developmental stages [7].…”

“…One can choose from different models of drug checking described here, starting with the guerrilla operations (Barratt et al , 2022). One can opt instead for alternative interventions, such as the distribution of colorimetric reagent kits (Kushakov et al , 2022) or substance residue analysis (Kaskela et al , 2022), to better manage stakeholder resistance, gain their trust and pave the way for the subsequent implementation of full DCS. Yet another alternative mentioned in the literature is “back of house” testing where chemical analyses are performed on samples that are not submitted by the public (Measham, 2016).…”

“…This is all the more desirable because local evidence is sometimes invaluable in order to get policymakers on board (Hutton, 2022). Drug checking is now, at least in Europe, disproportionately delivered to young adult men with an interest in electronic music (Koning et al , 2021; see also Kushakov et al , 2022; Measham and Simmons, 2022; Valente et al , 2022). The population of PWUD is much broader.…”